hello.
so we in the U.S. have some nasty gun violence. i think because we have so many guns available to us.
so what of sSouth American locales, where machetes and the like are like standard operating procedure? is there a lot of machete-related violence?
basically, i’m asking about places where common tools are also deadly tools, so like in those places, are said tools used a lot for violence?\
jb
You’re much better off comparing your statistics to Canada’s. At least in that case, you have two cultures of similar ethnic and racial composition, similar standards of living, with access to the same (violent) media, but Canadians don’t have nearly as many guns.
Our murder rates with knives, poisons and cars are comparable, by the way. We just don’t have a large block of handgun deaths.
:eek:
Well, I suppose I’ll wait to comment on this point until this thread gets moved to GD - which should be very soon.
How about the United States? The September 11th attacks were successfully carried out using nothing more than some razor blades.
on the surface it would seem to make sense but if you dig a little deeper you will find that in areas in the US with strict gun control there are more violent crimes then areas where lawful gun ownership is easier. in short more guns = less crime.
Instead of comparing US to Canada why not compare strict vs non strict states.
well, i understand that this board is organic and flowing, in a way that one person can’t steer it.
that being said, can i steer this away from one direction? that being the gun control direction. k2dave, my first sentence was just a way of saying that the presence of guns lead to gun violence. nothin about any other violence. i don’t want this to turn into a second-amendment debate.
basically, having guns around allows gun violence to occur. does having machetes on hand (for chopping through dense brush, vines, reeds) correlate with an increase in machete violence?
jb
Why? What’s wrong with that assumption? Making comparisons is much easier when there are fewer variables to consider. The fact is, Canada and the US do have similar demographic compositions. Is there something about that fact that is troubling?
“i don’t want this to turn into a second-amendment debate.”
Well, it isn’t, but the legality is definitely appropriate.
“basically, having guns around allows gun violence to occur”
Not exactly. A defacto gun ban for law abiding citizens allows gun violence to occur at far greater rates
Washington, DC, which bans personal firearms rather completely, is rather at the top, or near the top, for gun violence and illustrates this grisly fact quite elegantly.
Fair enough. If there are no guns there will be no gun violence. If guns are easily available then the gun violence rate will be X. If guns are hard to get then gun violence will be Y.
You are asking which is greater X or Y?
Also you are asking what happens where guns are substituted for other ‘tools’ which can be used as deadly weapons?
Ok for start what do you mean by violence (answer y or n)?
1 shooting/stabbing some to commit a crime
2 shooting/stabbing someone in defense of life
3 shooting/stabbing someone in defense of property
4 accidental shootings/stabbings
5 military shootings/stabbings
6 police shootings/stabbings
7 add you own
I would guess that you answer might change depending on how you wish to define violence.
no. dammit, why did i put ‘Gun Control’ in the header? i suck at written communication…
here’s where i was comin from. i was watching a PBS thing about archeology in Peru, and a few of these fellows on the special were hacking away at dense brush.
i got to thinking, “Man, if everybody in the U.S. had a machete, there’d be a shit more hacking attacks”. but the U.S. doesn’t have many machetes (macheti?). we do, however, have guns.
so right, instead of “which is greater, x or y”, cuz that is most definitely going straight to GD, I’m saying “Guns are available in the states so the gun violence rate is X” as well as “(absolutlely little factual basis here) Lots of Peruvians have machetes, and the machete violence rate is Y”, and i’m like comparing them, or trying to, what with the abovementioned little factual basis. So i ask you good GQ folks.
jb
oh, and as for machete violence, i would consider that any instance in which a machete wounds another person.
jb
p.s.- btw, although i keep saying machete, and machetes were at the heart of my original though process, i don’t intend to limit the conversation to machetes and Peruvians. thanks
OK so does the presence (popularity, availability) of deadly tools (whatever they may be in a certain area) correspond to an increase of use of the tools for violence?
Also if a police officer stabs a rapist in performance of his duty you would consider that violence for the purpose of this GQ?
If this is the case then It would seem to be true since the ‘common’ folk would be more likely to use such a tool to fend off an attack.
Also could a car be considered a common tool that could be a deadly tool?
Also could a car be considered a common tool that could be a deadly tool?
jb_farley, you’re asking an unfair question. You can’t ask a question about violence, using guns as an example, and based on an inaccurate assumption, then discount those who try to correct your (still incorrect) assumption with a wave of your hand and say “I don’t want to talk about gun control”. There is NOT a linear correlation between presence of item X (in this case, guns) and violent uses of X.
You can’t say “we have lots of gun violence. This is because of guns.” Well, I see what you’re saying. At the most basic level, if there were no guns, there obviously could be no gun violence. But relaxing restrictions on guns and making them more available tends to REDUCE violence committed with guns, rather than increase it.
By the same token, if more people had machetes, or widgets, I don’t think that would necessitate an increase in machete and widget violence. Example: Most households have at least one hammer. How much hammer violence is there? How often do you hear about screwdriver or salad fork violence? There is your answer: making a potentially deadly item more widespread does not turn those possessing one into desperate, violent criminals.
Although a machete can be an effective weapon (so can a fork), to a primitive society that needs a knife to hack through dense jungle in order to survive, it would more likely be considered primarily a tool, rather than a weapon.
Also could a car be considered a common tool that could be a deadly tool?
Didn’t mean to ask 3x but I kept getting an error message (but would still like an answer.)
Also I feel the same way about this topic as Joe_Cool that you are starting with an (at the very least) unfair assumption.
I am trying to take it as a GQ. and as such are allowing your unfair assumptions to help come to an answer given the conditions you put forth.
also you are changing the term violence to seemingly any wound - this would include self inflicted, accidential (and some others) which I would not define as violence
k2dave, yeah, you’re right. about the violence definition. especially since you brought up the car. let’s say, then, violence is defined by harm coming upon another person either in self-defense or simply attack.
and now, on to unfairness.
i am in no way asking an unfair question, at least from where i am coming from. my op had nothing to do with “Giving guns to people leads to more gun violence”, and also nothing to do with the opposite “Taking guns away from citizens leads to more gun violence”. neither of those statements has anything to do with the OP.
if you’ll notice, i never drew a linear correlation between presence of guns, and violent uses of guns. (i know, you specifically used a variable (X, instead of ‘gun’), but the only plugged-in value for that variable, the only value which has been debated at all, is guns- notice no one has mentioned machetes).
all i said was “so we in the U.S. have some nasty gun violence. i think because we have so many guns available to us.”
nothing about legal guns, nothing about how easy it is to have a gun. mainly noticing that we have a lot of guns in this country (which we do) and a problem with gun violence (which, dare i say, we also have).
jb
I don’t think you can really acurately compare Canada and the United States. The next time you have a week or two to kill, try driving from Boston to Atlanta. Canada is nowhere near as urbanized as we are.
Sure, you can compare Alberta to Wyoming, or Ottowa to Buffalo, but you just don’t have as many people. It’s easy to say “Canada, America, eh, it’s the same thing.” It’s really not.
jb_farley is trying to ask if American violent crime rates are consistent with those in other countries (I think). He also seems to be asking whether or not available weaponry is a factor.
I can’t even begin to address this. How do we get reliable statistics from places like Uganda? Does a stabbing in the London underground carry the same weight as a shooting in Brooklyn?
I guess I’m still looking for clarification.